Skip to main content

Full text of "Agenda"

See other formats


3 1223 06678 9547 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 
SAN FRANCISCO PORT COMMISSION 
' WATERFRONT PLAN ADVISORY BOARD 

COMMERCIAL & RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE 



AGENDAS AND MINUTES 



1992 



(Some of the Agendas and Minutes of this Subcommittee are missing.) 



San Francisco Public Library 



Gcvemment (nformation Center 
San Francisco Public Library 
100 Larkin Street, 5tli Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



^PORH OF SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY AND COUNTY OF. SAN FRANCISCO 

3100 FERRY^UILDING 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 

SAN FRANCISCO PORT COMMISSION 
RFRONT PLAN ADVISORY BOARD 

INDUSTRIAL SUBCOMMITTEE 
COMMERCIAL & RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE pOC!l!V5ENTC nrpx. 

.^^^i^GENDAS 4 ^^^2 

Tuesday, February 4; 1992 ^ . r -v. 

The San Francisco Port Commission's Waterfront Plan Advisory 
Board is divided into two subcommittees for Phase I of the 
waterfront planning process. One subcommittee will focus on 
Industrial Water-dependent uses; the other will address 

Commercial and Recreational Water-Dependent uses. The 
subcommittees will hold back-to-back meetings at the Port ' s 
office (Ferry Building, Suite 3100), in the Port Commission 
Room; the Industrial subcommittee will meet from 3:00-5:00 p.m., 
and the Commercial/Recreational subcommittee will meet from 
5:30-7:30 p.m. The agendas for this meeting are as follows: 

INDUSTRIAL SUBCOMMITTEE (3:00-5:00 p.m.) 

1. Introduction of Subcommittee Co-Chairs & Members 

2. Approval of Minutes from Advisory Board Meeting of 
1/7/92 

3. Staff Report & Introduction of Industry 
Representatives 

4. Staff Presentation of draft Profile of Container 
Shipping Operations 

5. Public Comment 

COMMERCIAL & RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE (5:30-7:30 p.m.) 



W A T E 

4 



1. Introduction of Subcommittee Chairs & Members 

2. Approval of Minutes from Advisory Board Meeting of 
1/7/92 

3. Staff Report & Introduction of Industry 
Representatives 

4. Staff Presentation of draft Profile of Passenger 
Cruise Industry 

5. Public Comment 



Copies of the Waterfront Plan Advisory Board subcommittees 
minutes from the meeting of February 4th will be available for 
public review as of February 11, 1992. A copy of the minutes 
will be mailed to you if you telephone 274-0354 and leave a 
message stating your name, mailing address, and the document that 
you are requesting. 

If you have comments or inquiries regarding the above, or any 
matter related to the Port's waterfront planning process, please 
telephone 274-0354 and leave a message, and a Port staff member 
will contact you as soon as possible. 



AGD2-4 



SCHEDULE FOR WATERFR3Nr PIAN ADVISORY BOARD SUBOCM^'ITEES 



JANUARY - MAY 1992 



[ NOTE : This schsdule may change, please call 274 - 0354 to coifirm, or 
check the Agenda Notice mailed one week prior to the meeting date.] 



The first phase (Hiase I) of work for the Waterfront Plan is scheduled for 
oonpleticn during January to May 1992. During this period, the Waterfrmt 
Plan Advisory Board will divide into two suboommi-ttees. Onoe the 
suboonmittees have been organized, each will evaluate and discuss a group 
of shipping and water-d^^endent industries to evaluate their land use 
inplicaticns for the Waterfrmt Plan. 

One subocmmittee will focus cn Industrial shipping and water-d^jendent 
uses; the other will address Commercial and Recreational shipping and 
water-df^3endent uses. The subcommittees will hold back- to-back meetings 
at the Port's office (Ferry Building, Suite 3100), in the Port Commission 
Room; the Industxial suboonmittee will meet from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m., and the 
Ccmmercial/Recreational subcommittee will meet from 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Each 
subocmmittee meeting will focus attention on one or a small group of 
shipping and water-dependent uses, as indicated below. 



Tuesday, February 4 : Subcommittee sessions begin. 

3:00 - 5:00 p.m. (Industrial subocmmittee): Profile of Container 
Shipping Cperations 

5:30 - 7:30 p.m. (Commercial & Recreational subocmmittee): 
Profile of Passenger Cruise Industry 

Wednesday, February 19 : 

3:00 - 5:00 p.m. (Industrial): Profile of Other Cargo Handling 
C^jerations (e.g. neo-, break-, dry-, liquid-bulk) 
5:30 - 7:30 p.m. (Commercial & Recreational): Profile of 
Passenger Ferries 

Tiie.sday, March 3 : 

3:00 - 5:00 p.m. (Industrial): Profile of Ship R^)air and Vessel 
Maintenance 

5:30 - 7:30 p.m. (Ccmmercial & Recreational): Profile of the 
Passenger Excursion Industry 



Vfednesday, March 18 : 



3:00 - 5:00 p.m. (Industrial): Profile of Fishing and Fish 
Processing 

5:30 - 7:3- p.m. (Ccninercial & Rscreaticnal): Profile of Small 
Boat Marinas and Boat Clubs, and Historic Ships and Tenporary or 
Ceremonial Berthing Facilities 

Tuesday, April 7 : 

3:00 - 5:00 p.m. (Industrial): Presentation of Information on 

Si^jport Services to Industrial Maritime Activities 

5:30 - 7:30 p.m. (Ccmmercial & Industrial): Presentation of 

Information on Support Services to Caimercial and Recreational 

Activities 

Tuesday, j^xril 21 (NOTE: This meeting date is scheduled in lieu of a 
meeting on the third Wednesday of the month) : 

3:00 - 5:00 p.m. (Industrial): Presentation on the Potential far 
ALLracting and Developing New Industrial Activities at the Port 
5:30 - 7:30 p.m. (Ccmmercial & Recreational): Presentation on 
the Potential for Attracting and Developing New Ccmmercial or 
Recreational Activities at the Port 

Tuesday, May 5 : Final Subocmmittee Sessions. 

3:00 - 5:00 p.m.: 

Each subcommittee will review and 
comment on final drafts of land use 
profiles prior to presentation to the 
full Waterfront Plan Advisory Board. 

5:30 - 7:30 p.m.: 

Wednesday, May 20 : The full Advisory Board reconvenes, after 
ccqpleting all subccmmittee sessions. The 4:30 meeting time will be 
resumed. The profiles produced by each of the subcommittees will be 
presented and discussed. 



FEB 1 3 1992 

FORT OF SAN FEANCISOO ^ 
3100 FERRY BUIIDING SAN FRANCISCO 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PUBUC fJ^RAR/ 

^'SPii FRANCISO^^RT COyMISSIQN 
A T E R ONT PLAN ADVISORY BOARD 



^^^REX3^TI0NAL SUBOOMyilTTEE 
""^Meeting of February ,4, 1992 

A-ttendiiTg Board Manbers: Co-cihair Moylan, Co-chair Roth, McCarthy, 
Mpy, Wbeste, Soott, Cervantes, Bierman, Viera, Boston 

Absent Suboommittee Maribers: Conley, Seochitano 

Attending Port Staff: Huerta, Lung, Dailey, Florin, Osmundson, Lai 

1. Administrative Business 

Co-chair Moylan called the meeting of the Recreational Subccnmittee to 
order at 5:35 p.m. The s^ixxxirriittee monbers introduced thanselves to 
the cruise industry representatives in attendance. Co-chair Moylan 
informed the subccmnittee of the changes in the board membership 
caused by the death of Jack Morrison, and also informed the 
subcarmittee that Larry Florin would be taking over Diane Oshima ' s 
responsibilities while she is on maternity leave. Co-chair Moylan 
also announced that the subconmittee meetings were being tape 
recorded. The subcommittee members voted unanimously to approve the 
minutes of the January 7, 1992 meeting. 

2. Cruise Industry Profile 

Lung provided a brief introduction, and Dailey then introduced the 
industry representatives in attendance: 

Stein Kruse, Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President, 
Seven Seas Cruise Lines. 

Susan Lethbridge, Vice President, Seven Seas Cruise Lines 

Michael Nemey, Manager of Operations, Williams Diamond & Cctipany 

Carol McRonald, Vice President of Marketing, Royal Cruise Line 

Bruce Setloff, Director of Passenger Services, Royal Cruise Lines 

Lung then provided an overview of the "Cruise Industry Profile Report" 
that the Port staff had prepared for the Advisory Board. She sunrnarized 
the report by stating that the Port had made a decision to build a new 
cruise terminal, and that the Advisory Board may want to evaluate this 
decision. She also suggested that the main questions that the Advisory 
Board would want to focus on were the validity of the assunptions that the 
Port made, and the assistance that the industry representatives could 
provide in evaluating these assunptions. 



The discussion began with an overview of the cxuise market worldwic3e. The 
industry experts discussed the rapid growth in the overall cruise market 
and some of the general trends in the market that have affected this 
overall growth. This growth was put into perspective by Carol McEtonald 
vAro explained that the Caribbean represents 2/3 of the North American 
cruise market, that North Americans represent 90% of the world wide 
passenger market, with 15% of all North American passengers coming from 
California. 

San Francisco's position in the market was also discussed, and it was 
e5q)lained by the industry that San Francisco is geografiiically isolated 
from any prime cruise destinations. Vancouver and Los Angeles are one to 
two sailing days closer to Alaska and Mexico (respectively), v^ch are the 
most popular west coast cruise destinations. With consumers wanting 
shorter and less expensive cruises, the extra time and expense to come to 
San Francisco is not ijsually worth it. 

The Advisory Board then asked industry representatives about vdiat factors 
could cause them to consider increasing their calls in San Francisco. The 
industry representatives unanimously agreed that the only possibility for 
significant grcvrtti would be the amendment of the U.S. Passenger Service 
Act. The Passenger Service Act restricts foreign flagged vessels from 
operating one-way cruises between U.S. ports, which eliminates the 
possibility of one-way cruises from San Francisco to Alaska or Hawaii. 
These cruises could potentially be short and inexpensive enough to attract 
more consumers. 

The industry representatives explained that the majority of ship calls to 
San Francisco are what are known as "repositioning" cruises, where cruise 
lines are moving a ship from a winter cruising location (such as Mexico or 
the Caribbean) to a summer cruising location (such as Alaska). The cruise 
ships are literally passing by on their way up or down the west coast. 

Stan Horn suggested that two other things that San Francisco could do to 
increase cruise business would be to seek legalization of gambling on 
board ships as many other states have done, and to try and attract a 
smaller cruise line that could dominate the local cruise market. The 
other representatives stated that they still thought that San Francisco's 
geography and the effect of the Passenger Service Act would prevent any 
cruise line from attracting much business sailing from San Francisco. 

Discussion continued about the possibility of amending the Passenger 
Service Act, or gaining an exemption for San Francisco. Huerta sunmarized 
the efforts that have been made to date, and indicated that the seagoing 
labor unions are adamantly opposed to any change in cabotage laws. Huerta 
likened their objections to the "camel's rose problem", in that the unions 
felt that small changes in one aspect of cabotage could lead to many other 
changes. 

The discussion then turned to the existir^ cruise operations at Pier 35. 
Michael Nemey described the difficulties in working cruise ships at Pier 
35, due to the very narrow apron on the exterior of the pier and the 
narrowness of the pier shed. Mr. Niemey had discussed the operations at 
Pier 35 with Steve Nielsen of Princess Cruise Lines, viho made the majority 
of ship calls in San Francisco in 1991. 



Mr. Nielsen stated that Pier 35 is not "passenger friendly", despite the 
inprovements made to the passenger lounge area in the early 1980 's. Mr. 
Nielsen also felt that Pier 35 is not especially "vessel friendly", 
although the situation is not as bad for ships as it is for passengers. 

The need for parking was discussed, and the industry representatives 
stated that the biggest need for parking in San Francisco is for visitors 
greeting passengers, or for specialized tours of cruise ships such as 
travel agent tours. The industry representatives agreed that the parking 
and circulation problems at Pier 35 are significant. 

The discussion then turned to the inpression that a cruise terminal makes 
on visitors. The general feeling was that the terminal makes an 
inpression, but stated that the terminal does not dictate v^ther a cruise 
line will come here. The industry stated that they will always call in 
San Francisco cn certain cruises no matter vAiat happens to the terminal, 
but by the same token would not expect to increase calls in San Francisco 
for a new terminal. 

The industry pointed to Vancouver as an exanple of a cruise terminal that 
makes a positive inpression on visitors. They described Canada Place (the 
cruise terminal ocrrplex in Vancouver) as an ideal operation, although they 
did point out that because it was built on the footprint of an existing 
namcw finger pier, bus and truck circulation is very poor. This is the 
same problon as at Pier 35, v^ch is a narrow finger pier. They all 
agreed that having oonmercial shops, theaters and hotels integrated into 
the cruise terminal makes it more attractive to passengers. 

Committee member Bierman asked how the Port would finance a new cruise 
terminal. Co-chair Moylan responded that he felt that as long as the 
hotel was not on the pier, the integration of oonplimentary, related 
commercial development with the terminal was a good way to fund the 
inprovements. 

Lur^ then summarized the discussions. The general conclusion was that the 
industry representatives agreed with the assunptions contained in the 
"Cruise Industry Profile Report". First, because of the severe 
limitations on growth in San Francisco's cruise market, there would only 
be an occasional need for more than two berths, so that a two berth 
terminal would likely be sufficient. It was also agreed that the 
construction of a new cruise terminal will not increase the number of 
cruise ships that call here. However, many operational problens inherent 
to Pier 35 (such as poor circulation, annual dredging requireiients and 
difficult ship servicing) could be resolved by building a new terminal at 
Pier 30-32. Because significant iricrease in cruise revenues cannot be 
expected, however, the Port cannot afford inprovements either at Pier 35 
or at Pier 30-32, and must look for other sources of funds, such as the 
development of conplimentary commercial uses. 

On a closing note, Bruce Setloff wanted to note that two of San 
Francisco's advantages for cruise lines are the convergence of connections 
at San Francisco International Airport, and that ship provisioning is done 
here because of the high quality and wide selection of goods, even for 
cruises that do not CTibark from San Francisco. 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY T^ND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

3100 FERRY BUILDING 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 



ALII 



SAN FRANCISCO PORT COMMISSION 
WATERFRONT PLAN ADVISORY BOARD 



INDUSTRIAL SUBCOMMITTEE e rtc-oT 

COMMERCIAL & RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE DOCUIvIENTS DEPT. 



^AGENDAS 



FEB \ 3 1992 



Wednesday, February 19, 1992 SAN FRANCISCO 

The San Francisco Port Commission's Waterfront Plan Advisory 
Board is divided into two subcommittees for Phase I of the 
waterfront planning process. One subcommittee will focus on 
Industrial Water-dependent uses; the other will address 

Commercial and Recreational Water-Dependent uses. The 
subcommittees will hold back-to-back meetings at the Port ' s 
office (Ferry Building, Suite 3100), in the Port Commission 
Room; the Industrial subcommittee will meet from 3:00-5:00 p.m., 
and the Commercial/Recreational subcommittee will meet from 
5:30-7:30 p.m. The agendas for this meeting are as follows: 



INDUSTRIAL SUBCOMMITTEE (3:00-5:00 P.M.) 



1. Approval of Minutes from Subcommittee Meeting of 
2/4/92 

2. Staff Report & Introduction of Industry 
Representatives 

3. Staff Presentation of "Profile of Other Cargo Handling 
Operations (Neo-, Break-, Dry-, Liquid-Bulk)" 

4. Discussion with Industry Representatives 

5. Advisory Board Discussion 

6. Public Comment (Note: Public comments will be 
entertained during meeting in addition to official 
public comment period at the end of the meeting) 

COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE (5:30-7:30 P.M.) 



1. Approval of Minutes from Subcommittee Meeting of 
2/4/92 

2. Staff Report & Introduction of Industry 
Representatives 

3. Staff Presentation of "Profile of Commuter Passenger 
Ferries" 

4. Discussion with Industry Representatives 

5. Advisory Board Discussion 

6. Public Comment (Note: Public comments will be 
entertained during meeting in addition to official 
public comment period) 

If you have comments or inquiries regarding the Port's waterfront 
planning process please telephone 274-0354 and leave a message, 
and a Port staff member will contact you as soon as possible. 

AGD2-19 



0T176 yo aGSiGNyy-:! ms 
Aayaari nriend 



1. 1 It^ VINUOJIVO 'OOSIOMVUd NVS • ONlQlina AdU3 



OOSIONVHd NVS dO vDIOd 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 
3100 FERRY BUILDING 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 




SAN FRANCISC^PORT COMMISSION 
VT^T^E RFRONT PLAN ADVISORY BOARD 




^ ^INUTES 
:OMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE 
MEETING OF FEBRUA^Y^.9, 1992 




Attending Board Members : Co-chair Moylan, Co-chair Roth,Conley, 
Secchitano, Scott, Cervantes, Bierman, Viera 



Absent Subcommittee Members : McCarthy, Moy, Woeste, Boston 



Attending Port Staff: Huerta, Florin, Wyman 



The meeting commenced at about 5:35p.m. 



1. 




Recreational Subcommittee to order at 5:35 p.m. Announcements 
were made regarding the changes in the schedule, ship repair 
will be moved to the April 7th meeting, and the March 3rd 
meeting will be a bus tour of the Port's facilities. Members 
of the committee, as well as the public were advised to contact 
the Waterfront Plan Hotline, 274-0354, if they would like to 
reserve additional seats for the tour. The subcommittee 
members voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the 
February 4th meeting. 

2 . Commuter Ferry Industry Profile 

The members of the subcommittee introduced themselves to the 
industry representatives. Wyman introduced the industry 
representatives in attendance: 

Eric Robinson, Manager, Ferry Service, Golden Gate Transit 
Ferry Division 

Rob McMillan, Senior Transportation Planner, MTC 
Paul Bishop, Manager Harbor Bay Maritime 

Mike Fajans, Project Manager, San Francisco Bay Area Ferry Plan 

Caroline Horgan, Operations Manager, Red and White Fleet 

Roger Murphy, Manager, Blue and Gold Fleet 

Ernest Sanchez, Manager, Oakland/Alameda Ferry Service 

Cheri Sheets, Transportation Planner, City of Alameda 

Wyman then provided an overview of the Commuter Ferry Industry 
Profile Report that the Port staff had prepared for the Advisory 
Board. He summarized the report by stating that all indications 
were that passenger ferry service would continue to be centered 



around the Ferry Building, and that as a result, the Port had made 
a decision to build the new Pier 1/2 ferry terminal. Wyman 
described the new facility and explained that it was to be financed 
from various public (local, state and federal) sources. Wyman then 
outlined the findings of the MTC Bay Area Ferry Plan study. It 
indicated that ferry service was likely to grow in the next decade 
(30% - 35%) and that it would continue to primarily serve commuters 
to downtown San Francisco. 

The discussion began with Advisory Board members questioning the 
impacts of the recently enacted Americans with Disabilities Act 
legislation on ferry service. The Industry experts mentioned that 
new rules regarding passenger ferry service were currently being 
written and so it was premature to discuss what if any impact the 
new act would have on the ability of operators to provide service. 

The Advisory Board then asked about the question of subsidies, and 
whether or not sufficient demand existed for continuing public 
subsidies for ferry service. The question was also raised as to 
how subsidies were to be evaluated in relation to the needs of 
other transportation modes. The industry experts mentioned that 
price would continue to be a very important consideration in 
determining usage. Currently only Red and White's Tiburon service 
operates without any public subsidy. If it was anticipated that 
ferry service would grow in the future it would continue to require 
subisidies to accomodate this growth. The discussion turned to Red 
and White's experience with the the San Francisco to Vallejo run. 
Although originally intended to serve as a tourist attraction for 
Marine World, they have found that it actually has much heavier 
usage for its commute run. Mike Fajans also mentioned that new 
technology will reduce the travel time for runs such as its Vallejo 
to San Francisco run in the future. 

Wyman mentioned that one of the suggestions for future ferry 
service was to run triangular service in between three cities. Red 
and White mentioned that it tried that with its Tiburon-Sausalito 
service without a great deal of success. 

Paul Bishop talked about the recent experience of Harbor Bay in 
starting up ferry service from the Harbor Bay development project 
and the general experience of having a single development operate 
and subsidize a commuter ferry service. The PUC has not yet 
granted a permit for Harbor Bay to operate due to opposition raised 
from citizens organizations in the East Bay. Harbor Bay will 
operate with a three year private start up subsidy, six cents per 
square foot assessment on all commercial development, and then will 
be forced to seek public subsidy. 

Discussion turned to whether or not there was sufficient space in 
the Ferry Plaza Basin to accomodate anticipated growth of passenger 
ferry service. In conducting its evaluation, MTC used as a 
criteria 20 minutes per vessel per berth (18 vessels per hour at 
the Ferry Building) to evaluate locking space. With that space 
limitation in mind there was sufficient space to accomodate 
current demand, as well as future anticipated demand. New service 
is anticipated from Port Sonoma as well as from Berkeley. No 
additional new service will be approved if MTC determines that 
there is not sufficient docking space to accomodate the new 
service . 



Currently there are five routes serving the Ferry Building and each 
takes a different period of time to reach the Ferry Building. 
There is currently no conflict with vessels reaching the Ferry 
Plaza Basin at the same time. The problem in the future will not 
be the number of routes but the fact that each will want to arrive 
at the same time. The analogy was made of the problems that an 
airport has in evaluating its space requirements. The issue for 
the Port is whether it must provide sufficient space to allow all 
ferry service to depart and berth at the times that they request. 
All of the industry experts expected that this could be regulated. 
The suggestion was raised by the Advisory Board that if demand 
becomes too great the Port may need a dispatcher. The ferry 
operators oppose this, and feel as though they have good 
communication between each other and are able to avoid conflicts 
through radio communication. The industry experts were asked if 
the Port was preventing growth by building at Pier 1/2 and all felt 
that there was sufficient manueverability and berthing space at 
Pier 1/2 and Ferry Plaza. They all felt that the Ferry Plaza Basin 
was an ideal location for their service. 

Discussion then moved to the ideal configuration for a ferry 
terminal . Location was determined to be the most important 
component, and the Ferry Plaza location was deemed the best 
location. Sheltered access to regional transportation connections 
and sheltered waiting areas for passengers were determined as the 
next most important considerations. It was also suggested that a 
new terminal should be tied to some type of commercial development 
for passengers waiting to board. The question was asked as to 
whether or not there should be sufficient space at the terminals 
for the ferries to be serviced. Red and White mentioned that they 
would like to have more space for servicing vehicles, but also 
expressed a reluctance to pay market rate for such space. All of 
the other operators felt that they currently had sufficient space 
to satisfy their servicing needs. 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. 



1-7MIN-D0C 



npr-a PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
# I 3100 FERRY BUILDING 

"J/Zf/^*^ SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 



SAN FRANCISC9^''P0RT COMMISSION 
TERFRONT PL A'^ ADVISORY BOARD 

INDUSTRIAL SUBCOMMITTEE r>o<-niUi'-MTc »T 

COMMERCIAL & RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEeP^*"^""'^'^ ' ^ ■ ' ' 



^^^: ^GENDAS M4R § ^ 1593 

Wednesda^C Ma^oh. 18, 1992 ^AN FRAnCJSCO 

The San Francisco Port Commission's Waterfront Plan Advisory 
Board is divided into two subcommittees for Phase I of the 
waterfront planning process. One subcommittee will focus on 
Industrial Water-dependent uses; the other will address 

Commercial and Recreational Water-Dependent uses. The 
subcommittees will hold back-to-back meetings at the Port ' s 
office (Ferry Building, Suite 3100), in the Port Commission 
Room; the Industrial subcommittee will meet from 3:00-5:00 p.m., 
and the Commercial /Recreational subcommittee will meet from 
5:30-7:30 p.m. The agendas for this meeting are as follows: 



INDUSTRIAL SUBCOMMITTEE (3:00-5:00 P.M.) 



1. Approval of Minutes from Committee Meeting of 3/3/92 

2. Staff Report & Introduction of Industry 
Representatives 

3. Staff Presentation of "Profile of Fishing Industry" 

4. Discussion with Industry Representatives 

5. Advisory Board Discussion 

6. Public Comment (Note: Public comments will be 
entertained during meeting in addition to official 
public comment period at the end of the meeting) 

COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE (5:30-7:30 P.M.) 



1. Approval of Minutes from Committee Meeting of 3/3/92 

2. Staff Report & Introduction of Industry 
Representatives 

3. Staff Presentation of "Excursion Boat Industry 
Profile" 

4. Discussion with Industry Representatives 

5. Advisory Board Discussion 

6. Public Comment (Note: Public comments will be 
entertained during meeting in addition to official 
public comment period) 



If you have comments or inquiries regarding the Port's waterfront 
planning process please telephone 274-0354 and leave a message, 
and a Port staff member will contact you as soon as possible. 



AGD2-19 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO rMiMcivi-s-o r% 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DOCUMENTS fiK.K 

3100 FERRY BUILDING 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 '^^"^ 

_ \^ SAN JFBANCjacO 

<^ SAN FRANCISCO PORT COMMISSION ' - - -vr 

ATERFRONT PLAN ADVISORY BOARD 



INDUSTRIAL SUBCOMMITTEE 
COMMERCIAL & RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE 



AGENDAS 

Tuesday, April 7, 1992 

The San Francisco Port Commission's Waterfront Plan Advisory 
Board is divided into two subcommittees for Phase I of the 
waterfront planning process. One subcommittee will focus on 
Industrial Water-dependent uses; the other will address 

Commercial and Recreational Water -Dependent uses. The 
subcommittees will hold back-to-back meetings at the Port's 
office (Ferry Building, Suite 3100), in the Port Commission 
Room; the Industrial subcommittee will meet from 3:00-5:00 p.m., 
and the Commercial /Recreational subcommittee will meet from 
5:30-7:30 p.m. The agendas for this meeting are as follows: 



INDUSTRIAL SUBCOMMITTEE (3:00-5:00 P.M.) 



1. Approval of Minutes from Committee Meeting of 3/18/92 

2. Staff Report & Introduction of Industry 
Representatives 

3. Staff Presentation of "Profile of Ship Repair 
Industry" 

4. Discussion with Industry Representatives 

5. Advisory Board Discussion 

6. Public Comment (Note: Public comments will be 
entertained during meeting in addition to official 
public comment period at the end of the meeting) 

COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE (5:30-7:30 P.M.) 



1. Approval of Minutes from Committee Meeting of 3/18/92 

2. Staff Report & Introduction of Industry 
Representatives 

3. Staff Presentation of "Small Boat Marinas, Boat Clubs, 
Historic Ship and Temporary or Ceremonial Berthing 
Facilities Profile" 

4. Discussion with Industry Representatives 

5. Advisory Board Discussion 

6. Public Comment (Note: Public comments will be 
entertained during meeting in addition to official 
public comment period) 

If you have comments or inquiries regarding the Port's waterfront 
planning process please telephone 274-0354 and leave a message, 
and a Port staff member will contact you as soon as possible. 



AGD2-20 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



FERRY BUILDING • SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 941 1 1 




GERFW F<OTH 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 
DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT 
MCALLISTER LARK IN 
SAN F-'RANCISCO CA 9410 



uocuMEfrrs dept. 

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO /:P[^ QQ 1932 

3100 FERRY BUILDING 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 SA.M Fk ,..-.__o 



SAN FRANCISCO PORT COMMISSION 
WATERFRONT PLAN ADVISORY BOARD 

^ MINUTES 

COMMERCIAL and RECREATION SUBCOMMITTEE 
Meeting of April 7, 1992 



Attending Board Members : Co-chair Roth, , Co-Chair Moylan, Moy, 
Cervantes, Woeste, Viera, Scott, Bierman, and Chair Tufts. 

Absent Subcommittee Members : Boston, Conley, McCarthy, Secchitano 

Attending Port Staff : Huerta, Lung, Florin, Ambrose, Lai 

1 . Administrative Business 

Co-chair Roth convened the meeting of the Commercial and Recreation 
Subcommittee at 5:40 p.m. The subcommittee members voted unanimously 
to adopt the minutes of the March 18, 1992 meeting. The subcommittee 
members then introduced themselves. Keri Lung and Tom Lai of the 
Port staff introduced themselves, and asked the experts on the panel 
to do the same. The representatives from the small boat and the 
historic ship communities included: 

Mike Bell - Project Manager for San Francisco Maritime 
National Historic Park - National Park Service 
Representative for Historic Ships. 

Sheila Best - Marina Manager for Pier 35 

Carter Stauch - Harbor Master at South Beach Harbor 

Joe Houghtelling - President of National Maritime Museum Association 
Larry Hitchcock - Boat Builder - Boat Repairs 

Betty Boatright - President of Mission Creek Harbor Associaton, 
Representing Bay View Boat Club. 

Martha Bella - Commodore Mariposa Hunters Point Yacht Club. 

Jim Haussener - Past President of California Association 
of Harbor Masters and Port Captains, Past President 
of California Marine Parks and Harbor Association, 
Boat Owner, Harbormaster. 



-2- 



Keri Lung suggested that the staff forego presenting summaries of the 
profiles in order to leave more time for discussion because of the 
number of subject areas to be covered. Lung also noted that there 
were a lot of people in the audience who wanted to participate in the 
discussion, and she invited them to feel free to interject their 
comments. It was agreed that the workshop would begin by discussing 
issues affecting small boat marinas and services, and that time would 
be reserved to discuss issues specific to historic ships afterward. 

2. Small Boat Marina, Boat Clubs, Boat Yards and Services Profile 

The panel members began the discussion by addressing what additional 
facilities may be required for boat owners in San Francisco. Their 
comments included the following observations. Although boat 
ownership among San Francisco residents may not be increasing, and 
there are vacancies at the two largest marinas, this is a 15 to 20 
year plan. Remember that the market absorbed nearly 1,000 new berths 
during the 1980 's, and that it takes time to develop new marina 
space. Also, with the Mission Bay development planned along the 
southern waterfront, it is likely that residents there will develop 
an interest in owning and either berthing or storing boats in the 
vicinity. In addition, while there are vacancies for larger boats, 
there are an insufficient number of berths for boats under 30 feet. 
At South Beach Marina there are currently 130 small boats using 
larger slips. (South Beach has 350 boats under 30 feet, and only 220 
berths that size. ) Finally, boat ownership by San Francisco 
residents should not be measured only by State licenses, but should 
look at the Assessor's tax rolls. People on the Peninsula berth 
their boats in San Francisco, particularly those who race. 

Panel members also noted that there are ten times more trailerable 
boats than berthed boats. A member of the audience cited statistics 
showing that 80% of all boats in the Bay Area are trailerable. There 
was consensus that San Francisco provided insufficient facilities for 
launching and storing small trailerable boats. 

There is only one public boat launch, and it is currently 
inoperable. At a recent meeting with the Recreation and Park 
Department, that has responsibility for maintaining the launch, the 
boating community learned that the City would make repairs to the 
launch dock to reopen the facility. There is a possibility that Cal 
Boating could provide grant funds to make minor improvements to the 
facility, including improving the slope of the ramp, increasing the 
dock space, and providing trailer parking along China Basin Street 
(at least 20 parking spaces. ) A member of the audience stated that 



-3- 



the Port's cooperation was requested to provide the land area along 
China Basin Street to accommodate the trailer parking and the ramp 
configuration change. The plan is to file for a grant application 
for $500,000 by June 1, 1992. 

Another panel member suggested that San Francisco needed a 4 lane 
launch ramp with plenty of parking, and restrooms. There are a lot 
of models for this throughout the Bay Area, including Richmond, 
Berkeley, and Emeryville. The ramp could be located between the two 
boat clubs where the existing ramp is, but parking would have to be 
provided across the street. These ramps would serve the fishermen 
and small boat (under 30 feet) owner that can not afford to berth 
their boats at a marina. 

There was also consensus among the panel members that more dry 
storage space should be provided in San Francisco. San Francisco 
waterfront is a destination for many Bay Area boaters, and such a 
facility may attract boat owners throughout the region. Dry storage, 
tiered or stacked, with a launch ramp could be a very profitable 
operation. The International Marina Institute has done a lot of 
research on the financial feasibility of dry storage facilities. 
Advisory Board member Scott inquired whether there was a study to 
support potential demand. He noted that Discovery Bay had a very 
good stacked storage facility, but that facility required sizable 
capital investment. One panel member stated that the costs rose when 
tiering or stacking was included, which might not be necessary in San 
Francisco. Scott noted, however, that if the trailerable motor boats 
were stacked, then less land area would be required. One panel 
member suggested that problems of view obstruction could be addressed 
by concealing the stacked boats behind bulk head buildings. 

Another related need that was identified was that of the lack of dry 
storage and launch facilities for small sailboats. The principal 
racing class in the Bay are 20 to 25 feet sailboats which can be 
easily dry-stored. 

These boats require a "mast up" facility which would not allow 
stacking, and because of the keel the boat must be lowered into the 
water by a crane or hoist. Other Bay Area marinas have this type of 
facility. The St. Francis Yacht Club in San Francisco has this 
capability, but usage is limited to members. This type of facility 
would be in particular demand by boat racers. 

A member of the audience pointed out that there was a large paved 
yard and ramp for trailerable boats at the Hunters Point Naval 
Shipyard, but that it was not being used due to the uncertain future 
of that property. 



-4- 



One panel member emphasized that In considering the land use question 
for the Port, It requires three acres for every 50 trailer/vehicle 
combinations. One of the Port tenants, Ed Bingham at Pier 64 north 
noted that he had 35 dry storage spaces and that he could have over 
100 If he had more land, provided that the public launch was 
repaired . 

There was also consensus that additional spaces for boats to moor, 
with secure tie up places, and safe access along the waterfront was 
needed In San Francisco. One person suggested that condemned Pier 64 
be used for a mooring area, or the area between the two boat clubs. 
Others noted that there used to be a number of mooring locations 
along the waterfront near the promenade. One person said that Plllor 
Point provided 200 moorings at $1 per ft. per month, with the mooring 
supplied by the owner and Inspected by the harbormaster. 

Generally, the emphasis by both panel members and participants from 
the audience was that there Is a need for more facilities for small 
boat owners at low cost. Including a public launch ramp, affordable 
dry storage ($60 per month) and free moorings and day berths for 
visitors to the area. 

Co-chair Moylan asked whether there was any conflict between the 
small boats and the ocean going ships In the Bay. The response was 
that It was not a problem. However, when the ships used to dock at 
Pier 38 they would blow out their boiler stacks and spray soot all 
over the expensive sailboats. This Is less of a problem now that 
Pier 38 Is not used for ship repair, however, ships docked there on a 
temporary basis cause this problem occasslonally . 

A member of the public pointed out that the profile report does not 
address the needs of kayaks, wind surfers and rowers, which are 
accommodated now at Aquatic Park with little or no facilities. 
(Note, these uses are considered purely public recreation uses which 
will be addressed In Phase II of the Waterfront Plan. ) 
Co-chair Moylan asked about other services for boaters. The 
consensus was that there was a need for fueling services and supplies 
for boaters. A proposal was made to develop those facilities between 
the two small boat clubs, and Betty Boatrlght offered to present the 
Port with a schematic drawing of that proposal. A member of the 
public noted that the South Beach Marina was not yet complete and 
that those services could be provided there.. That marina needs a 
revenue generating use on Pier 40 to subsidize marina costs, as was 
intended when the marina was developed. 



-5- 



3. Profile of Historic Ships 



The first qwuestion posed was whether there is a potential for adding 
more historic vessels along the waterfront? One panel member 
responded by saying that the priority should be that of taking care 
of existing ships instead of adding new vessels. 

Facilities are needed to support existing uses. The Pampanito, 
(which has paid $360,000 in rent and has had over 2.1 million 
visitors over a 10 year time period), needs 4,000 square feet within 
Pier 45 for storage, restrooms and submarine museum use, as well as 
some street frontage area. The Maritime Museum needs for additional 
space could be satisfied by use of a vacant Haslett Warehouse at Hyde 
Street, but this would not satisfy all of their requirements. The 
museum needs more space to work on the existing boats, e.g. metal and 
wood working shops. For example, they need 100,000 square feet to 
age timbers for use on the historic ships. The wooden ships do have 
to stay in the water. Also, parking is a general problem in 
Fisherman's Wharf. The Park Service estimates that they need $13 
million to fund repairs, not including the Wapama which would require 
another $13 -14 million. 

There was considerable discussion regarding the appropriate 
location for the historic ships on the waterfront. Arguments in 
favor of leaving the ships in the Fisherman's Wharf area include: 
the need for proximity to walk in tourist trade, the historic ships 
are beautiful to look at and increase commercial restaurant and 
retail revenues, there is a breakwater at Hyde Street Pier, it 
would cost too much to develop new facilities, and the existing 
location has been designated by Congress . Arguments were also 
advanced in favor of relocating the historic ships, particularly to 
China Basin Pier 46b, or even the Pier 70 area. Those in favor of 
moving the fleet argued that the ships were subject to rough 
weather at Hyde Street resulting in increased maintenance costs, 
the museum required more space which could be provided, and the 
Pier 46b location would provide an opportunity to display more 
historic ships along the waterfront. 

The National Park Service is in the process of developing a General 
Management Plan and a Business Plan to determine how the historic 
ships and maritime artifacts will be displayed and managed. This 
work ( space planning ) is being assisted by the Park Service ' s 
Denver office. The Park Service is considering the Pier 46b 
location, but there is a bias in favor of staying at Fisherman's 
Wharf. A request was made that the Port consider reserving Pier 
46b for a possible move of the museum and ships to the China Basin 
area . 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO wwwwmB.iMio utr i . 

CITY AND COUNTY OF S7VN FRANCISCO A-^D 1 7 lono 

3100 FERRY BUILDING f^^^ ' ' 1^92 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 

SAN FRANCISCO'PORT COMMISSION 



/// 



>4o. 

TERFRONT PLAN ADVISORY BOARD 



.^-^ INDUSTRIAL SUBCOMMITTEE^ 
COMMERCIAL & RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE 



^^^^^ENDAS 



Tuesday ,'^pril 21, 1992 



The San Francisco Port Commission's Waterfront Plan Advisory Board 
is divided into two subcommittees for Phase I of the waterfront 
planning process. One subcommittee will focus on Industrial 
Water-dependent uses; the other will address Commercial and 
Recreational Water-Dependent uses. The subcommittees will hold 
back-to-back meetings at the Port's office (Ferry Building, Suite 
3100), in the Port Commission Room; the Industrial subcommittee 
will meet from 3:00-5:00 p.m., and the Commercial /Recreational 
subcommittee will meet from 5:30-7:30 p.m. The agendas for this 
meeting are as follows: 



INDUSTRIAL SUBCOMMITTEE (3:00-5:00 P.M.) 



1. Approval of Minutes from Committee Meeting of 4/7/92 

2. Staff Report & Introduction of Industry Representatives 

3. Staff Presentation of "Profile of Support Services" 

4. Discussion with Business Representatives 

5. Advisory Board Discussion 

6. Public Comment (Note: Public comments will be 
entertained during meeting in addition to official 
public comment period at the end of the meeting ) 



COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE (5:30-7:30 P.M.) 



1. Approval of Minutes from Committee Meeting of 4/7/92 

2. Staff Report 6i Introduction of Industry 
Representatives 

3. Staff Presentation of "Profile of Support Services 

4. Discussion with Business Representatives 

5. Advisory Board Discussion 

6. Public Comment (Note: Public comments will be 
entertained during meeting in addition to official 
public comment period) 



If you have comments or inquiries regarding the Port's waterfront 
planning process please telephone 274-0354 and leave a message, 
and a Port staff member will contact you as soon as possible. 



AGD2-20 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 

FERRY BLDG. #3100 S& 
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 



GERF^Y F^OTH 
F-'UBLIC LIBRARY 
DGGUME^NTS DEF-'ARTMENT 
MCALLISTER & LARK IN 
SAN F~ RANG I BCD GA 94102 



S PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 

3100 FERRY BUILDING 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 



\\\ 



"SAN FRANCISCO PORT COMMISSION 
WATERFRONT PLAN ADVISORY BOARD 



INUTES 

COMMERCIAL and RECREATION SUBCOMMITTEE 
Meeting of April 21, 1992 



Attending Board Members : Co-chair Roth, , Co-Chair Moylan, 
Secchitano, Boston, Woeste, Cervantes, Moy, Viera, Bierman, Scott 

Absent Subcommittee Members : Boston, Conley, McCarthy 

Attending Fort Staff : Lung, Janis, Florin, Ambrose, Lai 

1 . Administrative Business 

Co-chair Moylan convened the meeting of the Commercial and Recreation 
Subcommittee at 5:40 p.m. The subcommittee members voted unanimously 
to adopt the minutes of the April 7, 1992 meeting. Moylan proposed 
adding a discussion item to the agenda for the May 5th subcommittee 
meeting as to whether or not the Advisory Board should take a 
position on current discussions regarding a ballpark or arena for 
Pier 46B. The committee agreed to add this to the agenda for the 
next meeting. 

Florin, of the Port staff talked about the next meeting on water 
dependent recreation and commercial activities that have not been 
covered in previous meetings. Nan Roth was concerned that the topics 
of swimming, kayaking, and wetlands had not been covered during this 
phase. Roth was concerned that they were being assigned a lower 
priority by awaiting the Phase 2 discussions. 

2. Profile of Support Services for the Cruise Industry, Passenger 
Ferries, Excursion Boats, Small Boats and Historic Ships. 

The panelists were introduced: 

Tim Leonadakis, City Park Inc. 

Captain Ghalib Tikari, General Steamship Corporation (Shipping 
Agency ) 

Dave Luce, Bay and Delta Tugs 

The members of the Advisory Board then introduced themselves. Florin 
summarized the report on "Support Services for Recreation and 
Commercial" uses. Mike Janis, Acting Director of Tenant Services 
summarized recent efforts being made by the Port to address the issue 
of parking for the sport fishing fleet, including working with 
merchants to develop a program for subsidized parking. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

A'^B i 9 1992 



Tim Leonadakis talked about his firms efforts to work with the cruise 
industry to offer parking for people taking cruises from Pier 35. 
They have a 500 space facility near Pier 35. Also they are working 
with boat owners regarding special deals for boat owners near Pier 
39 . City Park operates a garage at Lombard and Montgomery that is 
largely unused on weekends. Another garage on Beach Street is 
operated largely as a tourist lot. Leonadakis commented that the 
Wharf area needs more parking. He has been getting calls from people 
requesting parking at lots under the freeway. Moylan commented that 
everyone requests parking. Scott mentioned that their is a large 
paved lot near Piers 30-32 that is sometimes operated with shuttle 
service. Captain Tikari mentioned that recently he had to cycle 
through 16,000 people for a particular event. The principal question 
posed by the guests was where could they park. "B" Woeste mentioned 
that a city parking facility. Golden Gateway Garage, in the Alcoa 
building, operates a shuttle service for people to go to Chinatown 
and North Beach. Viera suggested that signs showing where there were 
parking lots would be helpful. 

Captain Tikari next talked about his business. He operates as a 
shipping agent for cruise lines. He arranges for all services for 
cruise ships coming that call on San Francisco. A cruise ship will 
need many services when it comes to call including ship chandlers, 
bonded warehouses and ship repair. A cruise ship is a floating hotel 
and as such often needs special services. As a shipping agent 
Captain Takari says that he has to sell the Port. The Port is at a 
geographic disadavantage and as such it needs to offer better 
services than most ports. Scott mentioned that cruise experts had 
told the committee that San Francisco should not expect growth in the 
industry. Captain Tikari said that if we have a good Fort, and offer 
good services then cruise ships are likely to come. 

Captain Takiri mentioned that it was important for his industry that 
services be available in close enough proximity so that ships on a 
tight schedule can be serviced. Ships that are berthed in Stockton 
and Sacramento must be serviced from the Bay Area, and as a result 
they pay a higher price. There is in his mind a shortage of 
chandlers and bonded warehouses near the Port. He mentioned that it 
was important to have a choice between competitors. 

Secchitano mentioned that it was difficult for the Port to make a 
return on these uses. Tikari stated that the San Francisco Port 
could benefit from providing space because it would encourage 
suppliers to move to San Francisco. There are 25 steamship agents in 
the Bay Area, and 4 of whom specialize in supplying cruise ships. 

Dave Luce, represented the Bay and Delta Tug Company. They operate 5 
tugboats on San Francisco Bay, 3 in San Francisco and 2 in Benecia. 
They currently operate their boats out of Pier 15. He expressed 
concern that there were not enough places in San Francisco for 
hauling out ships. They have used the shop in Alameda, Stones, to do 
repairs because the location in San Francisco has dredging problems 
and they can not get their boats in to that India Basin location. 
They are very happy with their space on Pier 15 although they could 
use more storage space, as well as access to a good hardward store so 



2 



that they can do minor repairs. They share Pier 15 with Parker 
Warehouse. They only use about 10% of the space at the Pier. They 
benefit out of the growth in the shipping industry, principally 
paaenger ships. Most of the work that they do is through agents. 
Staff asked if their might be an advantage to having all of the 
companies on one pier. Luce mentioned that their was a great deal of 
jealousy among the companies and that they were unlikely to agree to 
this. The one problem expressed by Mr. Luce was a difficulty in 
access to adequate fuel facilities. They now service their ships 
with a tanker truck at Pier 30-32. 

The meeting was opened to comments from the public. Captain Aker 
talked about the Maritime Museum. 

A representative from Donco Industries, Marine Repairs, the boat and 
ship repair company that operates the old Anderson and Christafani 
boat yard in Bayview, in addition to a facility in Alameda, spoke 
next. They currently employ between 125 - 175 workers. The biggest 
problems that they have are dredging problems that prevent access for 
larger boats. They would also like to have access to a drydock. The 
channel on which they operate is silting and without adequate 
dredging they will be forced to shutdown within 12 months. There are 
currently two major shiprepair companies in San Francisco, and Donco 
would like to be the third. Andrew Cayne from Donco suggested that 
the Port evaluate what was done in Portland to help the ship repair 
industry. Portland currently controls 35% of the private ship repair 
business on the West Coast. Portland built a multi-company facility 
on Swan Island. The Port of Portland controls the drydock and 
individual companies operate on the site. 

Bierman commented that she is on the Hunters Point Committee and that 
the committee is not looking at the issue of using the drydock. 
Florin commented that the Port has discussed hiring a feasibility 
consultant to analyze the market for bringing the new drydock on 
line. 

The meeting was adjourned. 



3 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

3100 FERRY BUILDING 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 

SAN FRANCISCO^'^RT COMMISSION 
WATERFRONT PLAN ADVISORY BOARD 

INDUSTRIAL SUBCOMMITTEE 
COMMERCIAL & RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTfeeCUMEfJ'i S DB|»7 

-^ ^GENDAS , /\HR 

Tuesda#^May 5, 1992 St^SX'^Ji^^^?. 

The San Francisco Port Commission's Waterfront Plan Advisory Board ~ 
is divided into two subcommittees for Phase I of the waterfront 
planning process. One subcommittee will focus on Industrial 
Water-dependent uses; the other will address Commercial and 
Recreational Water-Dependent uses. The subcommittees will hold 
back-to-back meetings at the Port's office (Ferry Building, Suite 
3100), in the Port Commission Room; the Industrial subcommittee 
will meet from 3:00-5:00 p.m., and the Commercial/Recreational 
subcommittee will meet from 5:30-7:30 p.m. The agendas for this 
meeting are as follows: 

INDUSTRIAL SUBCOMMITTEE (3:00-5:00 P.M.) 

1. Approval of Minutes from Committee Meeting of 4/21/92 

2. Discussion on whether or not the Advisory Board should 
make a recommendation, on a proposal for either a Ballpark 
or Arena at Pier 46B. 

3. Staff presentation on Shipping and Water Dependent 
Industrial activities, including overview of potential new 
uses, information on support service uses and question and 
answer session. 

4. Advisory Board Discussion 

5. Public Comment 

COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE (5:30-7:30 P.M.) 

1. Approval of Minutes from Committee Meeting of 4/21/92 

2. Discussion on whether or not the Advisory Board should 
make a recommendation on a proposal for either a 
Ballpark or Arena at Pier 46B. 

3. Presentation on Potential New Recreation Water 
Dependent activities including wetlands, swimming, 
kayaking, rowing, and public boat ramps. 

4. Advisory Board Discussion 

5. Public Comment 

If you have comments or inquiries regarding the Port's waterfront 
planning process please telephone 274-0354 and leave a message, 
and a Port staff member will contact you as soon as possible. 



AGD4-21 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 
3100 FERRY BUILDING 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 

\ ^SAN FRANCISCO PORT COMMISSION 

ATERFRONT PLAN ADVISORY 



BOARD 



MINUTES 



COMMERCIAL and RECREATION SUBCOMMITTEE 
Meeting of May 5, 1992 




Attending Board Members : Co-chair Roth, , Co-Chair Moylan, Scott, 
McCarthy, Conley, Bierman, Flanagan, Viera, 

Absent Subcommittee Members : Secchitano, Boston, McCarthy, Moy, 
Woeste 

Attending Port Staff : Lung, Florin, Ambrose, Oshima 
1 . Administrative Business 



Co-chair Roth convened the meeting of the Commercial and Recreation 
Subcommittee at 5:35 p.m. The subcommittee members voted unanimously 
to adopt the minutes of the April 21, 1992 meeting. Roth then turned 
the meeting over to Chairman Tufts for a discussion of the ballpark 
issue. Tufts reviewed the options open to the committee. Tufts 
informed the subcommittee that at an earlier meeting the Industrial 
Subcommittee had voted to defer taking a vote on the issue until the 
May 20th meeting when the Advisory Board would meet together. Tufts 
then reviewed for the Commercial and Recreation Subcommittee members 
the discussion that had occurred at the earlier Industrial 
subcommittee meeting. Lung noted that, in addition to a vote on 
whether or not to take a position on the ballpark/arena the May 20th 
meeting would include briefings Ed Helfeld of the Redevelopment 
Agency, Kent Sims of the Mayor's Office and Lu Blazej of the Planning 
Department on deliberations regarding the Hunters Point Shipyard and 
on the Southeast neighborhoods of the city. Viera expressed concern 
about fitting all of the items planned for the May 20th meeting 
together with a discussion on the ballpark. Tufts explained that the 
ballpark discussion would occur after the other items at the May 20th 
meeting. Bierman commented that she did not think that the massive 
size of the ballpark was commonly understood by the public and that 
if the public understood the walled effect that would be created they 
would vote against the park. Bierman asked Moylan whether the 
airport site has been considered by the Ballpark Advisory Committee. 
Moylan responded that they have been seriously looking at this 
proposal and that it is under consideration as a multi use facility. 
The arguments against the site are inclement weather, wetlands 
issues, opposition from neighboring communities. 

Tufts then turned the meeting over to Nan Roth for the remainder of 
the meeting. Keri Lung gave a brief overview of the topics for 
discussion. Lung mentioned that open space and recreation land use 
designations would be considered as part of the Phase II planning 
process, and that the purpose of this discussion in Phase I was to 
obtain a preliminary understanding of the general land use needs of 
those activities that are water dependent. Lung then introduced the 
"Industry Experts". Jon Nakamura and Ken Coren from the Dolphin Swim 



Club, Ruth Gravanis, from Save the Bay, Arthur Feinstein from the 
Golden Gate Audubon Society, Phil Arnold from the Recreation and 
Parks Departments, Karen Glatzel from the Port, Mike Berline and 
Nancy Stretch from South End Rowing Club and Kerstin Magary, from the 
Catellus Corporation, developers of Mission Bay. 

Ruth Gravanis and Arthur Feinstein first discussed the issue of 
wetlands. Gravanis presented a slide show on the benefits of 
wetlands for the waterfront. The slide show included a discussion of 
valuable wetlands areas in San Francisco, including Pier 98, 
Candlestick Point State Park, and Mission Bay. Gravanis discussed 
the benefits of wetlands habitats including their role in the food 
chain, wildlife, recreational uses and the purification of water and 
soils. Gravanis stated that the Clean Water Act prohibits filling 
wetlands if there is an upland alternative site. BCDC also prohibits 
building on tidal wetlands sites. Compatibility of wetlands with 
other activities is an issue since wetlands are sensitive breeding 
habitats. Compatibility of wetlands depends on the type of wetlands 
that you want, breeding grounds are the most sensitive, (in which 
case even public access should be restricted) feeding and resting are 
less sensitive. Wetlands are generally compatible with industrial 
uses. In Alameda County there are wetlands that are adjacent to 
residential developments. Breeding activity may be limited by 
surrounding activity but it still can provide spawning, fishery and 
bird feeding areas. 

Kerstin Magary of Catellus described the plans for a wetlands at 
Mission Bay. The plan calls for an urban wetlands, with island 
refuges for birds that are inaccessible to people. Estimated cost of 
creating the wetlands is $3 to $5 million. Outside funding will be 
sought to build the wetlands. If outside funds are available it 
could speed up development of the wetlands; otherwise Catellus will 
pay for development, but development will occur only when the areas 
immediately surrounding the wetlands are developed. 

Karen Glatzel discussed the Port's Pier 98 project. The Port intends 
to use Pier 98 as a permanent wetlands habitat. On-going wave 
erosion will present a major challenge for the establishment of 
permanent wetlands. The project is expected to begin construction in 
1995 at a cost of $4 to $5 million; funding sources for this are 
still being sought. 

Phil Arnold from the Recreation and Parks Department discussed India 
Basin Park which is designed to complement Pier 98. The community 
has expressed its desire to have a passive park that will rely on 
existing landscape, two natural coves and slight enhancement of 
existing wetlands. Four mini-wetland areas with a walking path along 
the shoreline are planned with an initial $300,000 grant. Eventually 
the park will accommodate small boats (such as kayaks, rowboats ) it 
will have a large grassy area for picnics and possibly a small 
fishing pier. There will not be any areas for active recreation 
uses. Total project cost when completed is estimated at $3 million 
and it is anticipated to take over 10 years. Moylan asked if there 
is anyplace on the waterfront that is absolutely critical to be 
maintained as a wetlands. Gravanis and Arnold agreed that Pier 98 is 
probably the most important area within port jurisdiction. 



- 2 ' 



Ken Coren of the Dolphin Club next spoke about swimming and boating. 
He emphasized that the Bay is a safe swimming resource. Ocean and 
Baker Beach are not safe. Only Aquatic Park provides safe 
conditions, that is it provides waters that are protected from 
currents and motorized vessels. With 1600 swimmers San Francisco has 
the highest concentration of channel swimmers anywhere in the United 
States. The Clubs themselves are important public resources, they 
are open, have relatively cheap memberships and they may be used on a 
day use basis. 

Limited additional facilities are needed to accommodate swimming and 
non-motorized boat uses. They need level entry areas, and for 
windsurfing or kayaks, adjacent parking areas. Coren believes that 
kayakers and windsurfing will be putting additional demand on the 
Port for safe access to water. Coren expressed concern about walling 
off the waterfront from users of the water contrary to the intent of 
Proposition H. There is a need for clean water. The Port should do 
its part for improving water quality by imposing discharge 
restrictions on Port tenants. Mi-ke Berlin© fr^om the South End Rowing 
Club mentioned that Piers 33 and 39 provide open swimming access 
points. No facilities are needed for this use, except to maintain 
what access currently exists. Basically any place between Aquatic 
Park and Bay Bridge is good to swim in. Swimming outside Aquatic 
Park requires a pilot for safety however, that is a non-motorized 
craft to accompany the swimmers. The Boat Clubs provide such pilots 
for members but not for the general public due to liability insurance 
limits. Lung asked for ideas that the Port could use to limit its 
own liability. Berline believes that the current law already limits 
the Port's liability. 

The meeting was next opened for public comment. Bob Issacson stated 
that the back up land to Piers 48 and 50 should be used for wetlands 
when these lands are not necessary to support water dependent uses on 
the Pier. Jeff Brown commented that Mission Creek, Islais Creek and 
the Beach adjacent to Pier 66 are good places for launching canoes. 
Aquatic Park is less desirable for kayakers because of lack of 
parking. Allen Gross of the Bay View Boat Club commented that 
swimmers and boaters can share facilities; boat launching areas can 
be expanded if Port provides an area for additional parking spaces. 

Phil Graf of Concerned Boaters - The National Water Rights 
Association, mentioned that swimmers and small boaters coexist in 
Aquatic Park, as long as people are reasonably responsible. Graf 
requested that the Board leave small pieces of existing beach in an 
undeveloped state similar to that which is being done at India 
Basin. Jim Gravanis commented that Pier 46B is a bad site for a 
ballpark. Dehnert Queen commented that the Board should consider his 
proposal for a Small Business Bowl . 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm. 




OF SAN FRANOSOO 
CnY MO aXKIY GF SAN fPANCISGO 

3100 FERECf BUnDINS 
SAN FRANCISGO, CKIJF0E9UA 94111 

SAN FKANdSOO FGRT a>MISSICK 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

M , ] mi 



WATERFRONT PLAN ADVISORY BOARD 

SUBGOfHTTEE 
RBCREAnCNAL SUBOGMilTI^ 

:$MNDAS 




Tueaday, ^^ns 2, 1992 



The San Prandscx) Poort Ocmmissinn's Vfaterfrcnt Plan Advisory Board is divided 
into two subcaimittees for Phase I of the waterfront planning process. One 
subcanmittee will focus on Industrial Water-dependent uses; the other will 
address Commercial and Recrsaticnal Watsr-Di^jendait uses. The sub uuni iitrtees 
will hold back-tJO-back meetings at the Port's office (Ferry Building, Suite 
3100), in the Port CJonmissicn Rocm; the Industrial subcommittee will meet from 
3:00-5:00 p.m., and the Oommercial/Recreational sub ummi ittee will meet from 
5:30-7:30 p.m. The agendas for this meeting are as follows: 



INDUgmiAL SUBOarMITTEE (3:00-5:CX) P.M. ) 



1. Approval of Minutes from Full Advisory Board Meeting of 5/20/92 

2. Staff Report 

3. Review of Sunmaries for industrial water-d^3encaent activities, which 
focus specifically on the land use needs of each use. The summaries, 
as revised, will provide the basis for the subcommittee r^xDrt to the 
full Advisory Board meeting scheduled for June 16, 1992 at 4:30 p.m. 



4. Public Comment 



OCM^ICIAL AlC RBCREAnCNAL SUBOCmmEE (5:30-7:30 P.M.) 

1. ^3proval of Minutes from Full Advisory Board Meeting of 5/20/92 



2. Staff Resort 

3. Review of Suimaries for commercial and recreational water-dependent 
activities, vrfiich focus specifically on the land use needs of each 
use. The stBirnaries, as revised, will provide the basis for the 
subcommittee report to the full Advisory Board meeting scheduled for 
June 16, 1992 at 4:30 p.m. 



4. Public Comment 



If you have comments or inquiries regarding the Port's waterfront planning 
process please tel^ixre 274-0354 and leave a message, and a Port staff member 
will contact you as soon as possible. 



AGD4-21 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 

f^iUa iUllOING • SAN FRANCISCO. CAUFORNIA 941 1 1 



GERRY RGTi-1 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 
DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT 
MCALLISTER &. LARK IN 
SAN FRANCISCO CA 9410 




PORT OF SAN FT^ANCISOO 
3100 FEFFCf BUILDING 
SAN FT^ANCISOO, CALIFORNIA 94111 

^SAN FFANCISCX) PORT OOM^SSION 



WATERFRONT PLAN ADVISORY BOARD 

^ MIM/TES 

COMMERCIAL AND RECREATION SUBCOMMITTEE 
Meetim of June 2, 1992 

///// 

Attending Board Members : Co-Chair Moylan, Roth, Cervantes, Soott, Tufts , Bierman, 
Viera. 

Absent : Boston, Oonley, MoCarthy, Moy, Seochitano, Woeste 

Attending Port Staff : Huerta, Lung, Florin, Ambrose, lai .^s.^o ...civlTS DEPT. 
The meeting cxmenced at approximately 5:45 p.m. -^^^'^ 1^ 

1 . Aaministrative Matters 

Moylan regretfully announoed the resignation of Ehiily Rodriguez from the Advisory 
Board and circulated copies of her 3?esignation letter to the subcommittee members. 
Staff will be following up vd.th recommendations far her r^laoement, v*iich vd.ll 
require Port Comnission approval. Moylan suggested that a letter be sent to 
Rodriguez thanking her for her service on this conmittee. 

Roth oonmented on the minutes of the May 20th meeting of the full Advisory Board. 
Roth did not feel that the r^xart on Maher's proposal was specific onoug^i in regards 
to Supervisor Maher's comments regarding letting the public back to the waterfront 
by removing piers that were not needed for maritime use. Viera challenged the 
notion of the piers not being useful if they were not in direct maritime use. Staff 
will submit revised minutes for the May 20th meeting that will reflect the changes 
requested by the ccrmittee. The minutes were tentatively adopted pending the 
changes. 

2. Staff R^xjrt 

Michael Huerta briefed the subocmmittee about a proposal initiated hy San Diego 
Mayor Maureen O'Connor to enable cities to gain control of Port authorities, thus 
providing a new source of General Fund revenue. Such a measure which has been 
generally discussed with Governor Wilson, would allow San Diego to build a new 
library. In response to questions from a Board member regarding the afprcpriateness 
of adcpting a position on the matter, Huerta indicated it was premature since no 
formal legislation has yet been drafted. In response to questions from the Board 
Huerta also commented that he did not know if this would apply to all ports. 

3. Waterfront Plan Phase One Work Products 

Lung provided an overview of the remaining tasks to ccnplete Phase One as described 
in the May 27th and June 2nd memos to the Advisory Board. In reviewing the approach 
for the Land Use Evaluation Matrices, Bierman asked how the public would have a 
chance to comntent on the reccmmendations in the matrices. Bierman suggested that we 
solicit public comment on the matrices and actually defer adoption of the matrix 
until a subsequent meeting, once the public has had a chance to respond. 



staff oannented that even if a decision was made at the June 16th meeting it cxuld 
be tentative until public comment could be solicited. Scott questioned v*iether or 
not we wou d be able to ocrplete the matrices in one session. It was determined 
that we would start on June 16th and continue work on the matrices at future 
meetings until ocnpleted. Moylan suggested that we send sumnaries and matrices to 
industry representatives and to the interested public and attach a form that asks 
them to return coiiiients to staff. 

Qarmercial and Recreation Summaries 

Florin proceeded to review each item in the Cruise, Excursion Boat, Oonmuter Ferry, 
Recreational Water Users, Historic Ships, and Terparary and Ceremonial Bertiiing 
summaries inoorparating revisions as provided by suboonmittee members. Revisions to 
ttiB sumiaries have been prepared to respond to ocmments that were aired. Pending 
approval of those revisions at the next Advisory Board meeting, the subcommittee 
members accepted the information in the sunnnaries as being a fair factual 
r^iresentation of the land use-related information contained In the industry 
profiles and discussed during the roundtable discussions. 

Please refer to the proposed revisions to the summaries (noted wit±i a "REVISED - 
6/2/92" in the i-pper rigfit comer), vrfiich reflect the bulk of the subcommittee 
discussion. 

A quorum for the meeting was lost at 7:35 pm however discussion of the surnnaries 
continued until 8:40 pm. No votes were taken.